Quote:
Originally Posted by Amanah
We still live in a world where there is a need for judicial and legislative government like it or not, and it might as well be patterned according to God's law.
God's law would not be legalizing abortion and gay marriage. God's law would do away with our worthless penal system and institute restitution and capital punishment.
|
That causes me to consider a few questions.
Whose interpretation of God's Law?
Who is worthy to enforce it?
Who buries the bodies of the sinful minority in such a "Christian" society?
I believe that government's coercive power should be seriously reduced. It's miss used daily. We catch a 20 something with weed and he gets locked up for 10 years. But a child rapist can escape jail time and live among us on house arrest or on probation. The kid was arrested after not using a turn signal and his car being searched while on the way to buy a bag of Doritos to munch later when he planned on smoking a little and watching Mystery Science Theatre. How is that justice? Such misapplication and abuse of power can be found in other areas throughout the justice system. Here's a libertarian truth. The more laws a government makes... the more criminals it produces. Think about it. If they outlawed using your left foot, we'd have to hop everywhere. How many "criminals" do you think it would produce as millions tried to hop to work in the morning? If they outlawed breathing, they'd be able to lock us all up. LOL We need less laws, not more laws.
Now, some would say, "But wouldn't that produce anarchy?" Yes. But thank goodness that's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying there are silly crimes. People getting fined for collecting rain water. There are countless victimless crimes out there that only stand to justify the government's power, increase revenues, and create more criminals to lock up in the privatized prison systems that many of these politicians own stock in. Parents are being brought up on criminal charges of negligence and child endangerment for leaving a 12 year old home to do their homework while they run down the street to the store, a trip that only takes 15 minutes, tops. Why? Because a nosey neighbor is all up in their business. Nothing happened. No one was harmed.
The 12 year old is essentially home alone when mom's at work and dad's out back in the garage working on a car for three hours. Now, if something actually happened, and someone was harmed or property damaged, yes, the question of negligence should be asked. But when nothing even happened? It's dumb.
Government's power to coerce and use force should be limited to three primary categories. In serving the people, government's power should be limited to protecting...
1.) Life.
2.) Liberty.
3.) Property.
If an individual's actions don't endanger another's life, liberty, property... there is no reason to criminalize it. For example, alcohol. If someone drinks a few shots of whisky, or a couple of beers, and gets behind the wheel of car... they are endangering the lives of others. This warrants criminalization. However, if they buy their boos and go home to listen to music and have a few drinks, while staying off the road, that shouldn't be criminalized. If someone kidnaps another person, that is taking their liberty, that should be criminalized. Laws that are specifically designed to deny another the legal right to do something that causes no harm to anyone or their property should be struck down. If one doesn't want to observe the Sabbath, that doesn't harm me or endanger my property. More power to them. If someone wants to marry someone of the same gender, that doesn't harm me or my property. More power to them. If they want to break in my home, that endangers my property and perhaps even my life if they have a deadly weapon.
Life. Liberty. Property. These three pillars of a free society should be protected for all citizens. And for an emotionally secure society, this really should be common sense. When people start saying, "There should be a law.", always ask yourself... is the action being talked about one that endangers another's life, liberty, or property. If not... there's no need for a law...even if their actions are morally reprehensible to you and I personally. I'm sure we do things they would find equally reprehensible. I used to spank my kids. My extended family acted like I was a terrorist or something. But does spanking my kids endanger any of their lives, liberty, or property? Nope. So, they can feel free think what they will, but I will still discipline my kids. Laws restricting parents from disciplining their kids are stupid. I look at it like I'm actually protecting their lives, liberty, and property by spanking my kids. Because when my kids are grown... I don't want them running around carrying guns, joining gangs, breaking into houses, and stealing from those very people criticizing me. lol
What about war? Well... any action on behalf of any group or government that endangers the lives, liberties, or property of the American people can be met with military force. But if that nation's actions do not threaten American lives, liberties, or property... it's that other nation's business. Now, with alliances and coalitions, sure... we stand together. So this can be extended to protecting the lives, liberties, and property of our allies too. But we have to use discretion and a measured response might be in order. But to me, endangering these things justify war.
Frankly, every possible question should boil down to life, liberty, property. Does a corporation's business practices endanger the lives, liberty, or property of citizens? (dumping toxic waste, excessive fees and interest, political collusion, predatory lending, etc.) If so, then it should be criminalized or prohibited.
When I hear about any controversy, I ask myself if whatever it is endangers the life, liberty, or property of myself or another? If it doesn't, I see no reason to empower the government to get involved.
I think we have more to fear from coercive government than we do sinners.
Threaded Mode
